New Guidelines On Quashing Of Fir U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C. By Supreme Court Of India

Singapore is a republic with a parliamentary system of Government. Singapore was formerly a British colony and her legal system is derived from the common law as developed in England. The common law system is distinct from the civil law systems that operate in Europe and countries such as Indonesia and Japan, which are derived from Roman law. Other countries that employ variations of the common law system are the United States, Canada, Australia New Zealand, Malaysia and India. The main feature of the common law system is that judges’ decisions in pending cases are informed by the decisions of previously settled cases. The Constitution is the nation’s supreme law. It entrenches basic freedoms of the individual and provides for the organs of state. Any legislation contrary to the Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. Pursuant to the Constitution, the President, as the Head of State, appoints the Prime Minister and the other Cabinet members from among the elected Members of Parliament.

The Prime Minister leads the Cabinet in the administration of the Government. The Legislature comprises the Singapore Parliament and the President. The Singapore Parliament is modelled after the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy where Members of Parliament are voted in at regular General Elections. The functions of Parliament include making laws, controlling the state’s finances and taking up a critical/inquisitorial role to check on the actions of the governing party and the ministries. There are currently 90 Members of Parliament representing 3 political parties. The Executive includes the President, the Cabinet and the Attorney-General. The head of the Executive is the President. The President is elected by the people and is empowered to veto government budgets and appointments to public office. The Cabinet is led by the Prime Minister and is responsible for all government policies and the day-to-day administration of the affairs of state. It is responsible collectively to Parliament, and comprises the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, and the ministers in charge of the government ministries. The Attorney-General is the principal legal advisor to the Government and has the power and discretion to prosecute offenders. Sundaresh Memon is the current Attorney-General.

The Judiciary consists of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts and the head of the Judiciary is the Chief Justice. The highest court is the Court of Appeal which hears both civil and criminal appeals from the High Court and the Subordinate Courts. The Subordinate Courts consists of the District Courts, Magistrates’ Courts, Juvenile Courts, Family Courts, Coroners Courts and the Small Claims Tribunal. A special Constitutional Tribunal hears questions referred to by the President on the effect of constitutional provisions. The judge is the arbiter of both law and fact in Singapore. There is no jury in court trials. The present Chief Justice is Chan Sek Keong. The legal profession in Singapore is ‘fused’ – the Singapore lawyer may act as both an Advocate as well as a Solicitor. The Law Society of Singapore is a statutory body which is the representative body for all lawyers in Singapore.

The Singapore Academy of Law is a statutory body whose membership comprises of the Bench, the Bar, corporate counsel and faculty members of the local law schools. The Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the School of Law of Singapore Management University conduct undergraduate and post-graduate law courses. The Singapore Police Force is responsible for keeping peace and order in Singapore. Internal Security Department – domestic security. There are auxiliary police forces, being commercially run organisations authorised by law to carry out certain police-style functions, such as providing security for banks and airports. It can be a complicated task to find the relevant law, even for a lawyer. A starting point may be websites giving an overview of the law or with links to relevabt resources. is a Government portal providing links to information and policies on law. The Law Society of Singapore’s website also provides online information on court systems and various common issues such as bail, police investigations and legal costs.

In a decision today, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia invalidated the ruling in Wrenn v. DC. Sr. US District Court Judge Frederick Scullin, Jr. had issued a preliminary injunction against the new “may-issue” carry law adopted by the District. That ruling had been stayed while the Court of Appeals considered DC’s appeal of the injunction. Senior Circuit Judge David Sentelle writing for the Court of Appeals said that the case must be overturned on jurisdictional grounds and that they Court was not ruling on the merits of the case. He said based upon a 1937 Supreme Court ruling in Frad v. Kelly that a ruling where the judge did not have jurisdiction was null. The controlling fact in this case is the identity of the judge who decided it in the district court – The Honorable Senior United States District Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., of the Northern District of New York.

The difficulty in this case is evident from the office of the deciding judge. Judge Scullin is a Judge of the Northern District of New York, not of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Under the Constitution and the statutes, the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a judge to the district court of a particular district, where he exercises the jurisdiction of the court. It is possible for a district judge, including a senior judge, to lawfully adjudicate matters in another district. However, in order for a judge to exercise this judicial authority in a district located outside the circuit of his home district, the judge must be “designated and assigned by the Chief Justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 294(c)-(d). See also 28 U.S.C. ] . . . ] . . . ]” the judge duties in the receiving district. Id. Although Judge Scullin had served under a properly issued designation, the difficulty in the present case is that designation was limited to specific and enumerated cases. The present litigation is not one of those cases. The error in this case is quite understandable. The calendar committee of the district court assigned the matter to Judge Scullin because it deemed the case to be related to another case over which Judge Scullin presided. The difficulty is, while the earlier case was within the Chief Justice’s designation, the present one is not. What this means in practical terms is that the Wrenn case must start over from scratch. A new judge must be appointed for the case and briefs submitted. If there is a good thing coming out of the Court of Appeals ruling, it is that no precedent involving the substance of the case was established.

There is always a special and interpersonal relationship between a woman and her gynecologist. Every woman at one point in her life or another needs the help of a GYN who can answer her questions to the best. Many times you may even have questions regarding the existing medication or procedure being operated on you by your existing gynecologist. In such cases it’s time that you go for a second opinion. Let us discuss this matter in much more detail. What is a second Opinion? The second opinion gynecologist is a specialist who will evaluate your current physical condition, symptoms and lab test results. Based on such evaluation he would make recommendations that would suit your ailment. Such recommendations can be the same or different than your official doctor’s opinion. Even if you have full faith and share a great relationship with your existing GYN you should take time for another opinion. It’s so because medical advancements are happening almost every day and it’s difficult for a particular doctor to be an expert in every such innovation.

Therefore it’s very much possible that different doctors approach the same problem with different views. Additionally you also can see it as a method through which you can confirm your original prescribed procedures as well as know all the available procedures regarding your medical problem. If you’ve been prescribed with no possible treatment or the option is highly invasive. If your case is unusual or rare. If you think that the procedure recommended is outdated or risky. If you are uncomfortable about your existing GYN experience or way of treatment. Other than that going for another opinion never hurts. How can you find another gynecologist? For a second opinion you need a doctor who is an expert in the field and comes highly recommended by his previous patients. To find such a GYN, internet can pose to be the best possible solution. To find the one you can research on the internet about doctors who specialize in treatments that are recommended to you. You can also search about the professional experience and recommendations about that concerned doctor. This would help you in finding the right specialist for your problem. Nowadays many reputed gynecologists in Chicago have their personal website. You can read about them there as well and book an appointment with them online too. Author writes articles on gynecological problems. Here he explains the need of a second opinion gynecologist and how can one find the best gynecologist in Chicago. Public Opinion is a work by Walter Lippmann now brought to you in this new edition of the timeless classic…. Why Taking Second Opinion In Your Gynecology Treatment Is Important?

However, that may be question of quantum. Section 307 of the Code. We would like to expand this principle in some more detail. Narinder Singh & Ors. State of Punjab & Anr. No.2 (who is the complainant). 3. We have heard counsel for the parties at length. FIR No.121/14.7.2010 was registered. 9.7.2010 at 7.00 A.M. Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. MLR’s report, an FIR under sections 323/324/34 IPC was registered. FIR in question is quashed. Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari vs. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 482 of the Cr.P.C. 147,148,149,323,307,452 and 506 of the IPC. Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers were described by this Court in B.S.Joshi vs. Section 482 of the Code. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Section 320 of the Code.

Public Servant while working in that capacity. State to punish the crime doer. However, that may be question of quantum. Section 307 of the Code. 19. We would like to expand this principle in some more detail. Section 307 of IPC. 147,148,149,323,307,552 and 506 of the IPC. 173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. Court in Gian Singh vs. Shiji vs. Radhika & Anr. Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. 23. In a recent judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat & Ors. “We find, in this case, such a situation does not arise. “grievous and fatal for life”. “grievous and fatal for life”. Section 307 IPC, but not by the High Court. ” and “the social impact”. 141 of the Constitution of India. Court is to act at the said compromise and quash the proceedings. This is so recognized in various judgments taken note of above. Section 307 IPC as well. Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. Section 320 of the Code. 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. This becomes an important aspect. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. 36. Appeal is allowed.

India is a dynamic cosmopolitan country whose English model common law system is complemented by distinguished personal law codes applying to distinct religions, such as Hindus, Muslims, and Christians. The Supreme Court comprising of 30 associate justices and one chief justice is the highest court of law in the country and it essentially hears to the cases that have not been resolved by the lower courts. Lawyers are seen as the guardians of the legal system, as well as the upholders of the constitution of India and hence the legal profession is held in high regard here. The legal domain in India can be broadly classified into multiple categories, such as criminal, civil, constitutional, international, family, patent/copyright real-estate and labor law. The Bar Council of India is responsible for regulating the requirements of the law degrees recognized in the country. As per the regulations of this council, aspiring lawyers of the nation get the choice of enrolling into one of two types of law courses. Three years of study following a Graduation in any field from a UGC recognized university. Five years of integrated course study after which the student eventually earns a degree “with honors” and a prestigious degree in law. The Bar Council of India essentially sets the norms of recognizing law universities and colleges qualified to award degrees in law. Author Bio: The author of this article is an education consultant who has years of experience in helping students decide on the right career option. He regularly writes about various career options via his blog.

Each EVM has a balloting unit and a control unit. Data of the votes polled is stored in the control unit. After polls, the data stored in the control unit is encoded for counting of votes which is done in the presence of the candidates or their election/counting agents. Thereafter, entries are made in Form nos.17C and 20 and the poll result in form of a result-sheet is announced. Rule 93 stipulates that ballot papers in physical form cannot be inspected or produced before any person or authority except under the order of a competent court. Rule 93(1A) which deals with data stored in the control unit in electronic form, states that the control unit cannot be opened, inspected or produced before any person or authority except upon an order of a competent court. Use of the word “shall” in said Rule; “shall…not opened except under the orders of a Competent Court..”, makes the provision imperative or obligatory. Retention and disposal of the EVMs, an administrative act, exercised by the Election Commission, is aimed at avoiding technical delays and problems due to non-availability of the EVMs; retaining sealed papers/units and maintain confidentiality over a length of time.

The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 93 in various cases. REP Act is prior in point of time and in case of conflict with any provision of the RTI Act, the latter Act will prevail. Further the Rules framed under the REP Act are subordinate legislation and in case of conflict between the provisions of the said Rules and the RTI Act, the RTI Act will hold the field and has to be applied. However, Section 22 of the RTI Act is triggered and is applicable if there is a conflict between REP Act, the Election Rules and the RTI Act. Albeit, where there is no conflict between the two statutory enactments, Section 22 of the RTI Act is not applicable. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines information as material in any form accessible to a public authority under any other law i.e. an enactment other than the RTI Act.

Section 2(j) defines “right to information” as “information accessible under the RTI Act which is held by or under the control of the public authority”. The words “information accessible under this Act” used in Section 2(j) can cause ambiguity, if read in isolation. But on a harmonious reading of the two definition clauses, the words “accessible under this Act” have reference to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act otherwise the two definition clauses will be mutually contradictory. The term “Right to information” should be defined with reference to the term “information”. The words “information accessible under this Act” in Section 2(j) will mean information which is accessible to a public authority and not information to which the public authority is denied access. The words “under the control of a public authority” as per their natural meaning imply right and power of the public authority to have access to the said information. Wharton‟s Law Lexicon (15th edition) defines the word “held” as “to have the ownership or use of: keep as one‟s own”.

In Stroud‟s Judicial Dictionary (4th edition) it is observed that in legal parlance the word “held” means to possess “legal title”. “held by” in section 2(j) in the context of the RTI Act will include not only information under the legal control of the public authority but also all information which is otherwise available with them. The public authority should have dominion over the information or semblance of the right to the material which constitutes information. Thus, to word it differently, material/details to which the public authority has access must be furnished, subject to the exemptions under the RTI Act. However, if the public authority is denied access or cannot have access to due to any limitation or restriction under a statute, the material does not constitute „information‟ under the RTI Act. Once statutory precondition for access by the public authority to material/details is satisfied, the material/details are “information” within the meaning of section 2(f) and a citizen has a right to access “information”. The requirement is that the public authority should have right to access information which is “held by or under the control of any public authority”.

Any other interpretation of the foregoing sections of the RTI Act, will lead to incongruous and unacceptable results, with a statutory protection or prohibition in another enactment being nullified by filing an application under the RTI Act. Interpreted in this manner there is no conflict between the provisions of the RTI Act and the REP Act and the Election Rules framed thereunder. As per the Election Rules, once the ballot papers or control unit or EVMs is sealed, no one can have any access to the same except on an order passed by a competent court. The Election Commission does not have right to access the control unit of the EVMs, to encode or download and re-examine the data without permission of the competent court. There is a prohibition and/or restriction on the right of the public authority to have access to the information. Right to information is an important right. At the same time, maintaining secrecy and confidentiality of the ballot papers, etc. is also an equally valuable right. The Supreme Court has balanced the two rights when it dealt with the question of re-examination and inspection of ballot papers in its decision in Bhabhi (supra), V.S.Achuthanandan (supra) and Ram Sewak Yadav (supra). On legal interpretation of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, information must be accessible and held by or under the control of any public authority. Lastly, it is not as if an aggrieved party is remediless.

UPDATED, 12:42 PM: Olivia de Havilland is hitting back at FX’s attempts to keep the Gone with the Wind actress’ lawsuit over her depiction in Feud: Bette and Joan from being heard before the Supreme Court. “In its Opposition, FX claims that Miss de Havilland’s case is not ‘cert-worthy,’” her lawyer Suzelle Smith said. “This is another way of saying FX does not want the U.S. Supreme Court to take a good look at the Court of Appeal Opinion, written by a state justice with an extremist view that the First Amendment should protect knowing falsehoods about living persons in profitable docudramas. FX today filed a writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear her case, which was rejected by California’s high court in July after it had been dismissed by an appellate court a few months before. “The Petition’s central argument is that the California Court of Appeal adopted a sweeping rule that ‘the First Amendment grants absolute protection for knowing or recklessly published false statements in a docudrama format,” today’s FX filing asserts (read it here). “The court of appeal did no such thing. Instead, the court correctly applied well-settled law and concluded, based on the particular facts before it, that Petitioner had no probability of establishing the requisite elements of her false-light and right-of-publicity claims. ] Court need not and—at least as to the false-light claim— cannot review these factbound dismissals, neither of which conflicts with any decision of this Court or any other. Deadline has reached out to de Havilland’s attorneys for comment but has yet to hear back.

Mumbai Property Exchange is Mumbai’s oldest property portal/web site and is RERA Registered Mumbai Property Alternate lists newest Below Construction RERA Permitted Tasks in Mumbai, Thane and Navi Mumbai along with Resale and Lease each Residential and Business Properties. The CBI,which is probing the Sohrabuddin encounter,had maintained all along that the two encounters had been linked and that Prajapati was witness to the kidnapping of Sohrabuddin Prajapati Magnum Dronagiri and his wife Kauser Bi. Prajapati was killed in an alleged pretend police encounter at Chhapri village in Danta on December 28, 2006. During my time at school, I discovered what it means to battle alone,” Prajapati says. Disclaimer: The above cost break-up and calculations are as per the information supplied in the latest official value list available with us. Nevertheless, the price data does change often and Prajapati Magnum Dronagiri Mumbai without discover, hence, customers are recommended to verify the above info independently.

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island has been consistent about delineating the factors that The Rhode Island Family Court must analyze in determining Rhode Island Child Custody Cases. Child Custody battles in Rhode Island usually occur in the context of Divorce cases, Post Divorce cases or Miscellaneous Petitions between non married parents seeking custody. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island has been consistent about delineating the factors that The Rhode Island Family Court must analyze in determining Rhode Island Child Custody Cases. Child Custody battles in Rhode Island usually occur in the context of Divorce cases, Post Divorce cases or Miscellaneous Petitions between non married parents seeking custody. The RI Family Court must determine what is in the “best interest of the child” This is very subjective and analytical standard. It is adviseable to contact a Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer or a RI Family Law Attorney to get legal advice concerning the facts and circumstances in your case. There are 8 basic factors that the judge should look at in determining the best interest of the child. Id. Several factors must be taken into consideration by the Judge in making a best interests of the child determination. Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d 909, 913-14 (R.I. If a parent is trying to modify an existing Child Custody determination / Family Court Order then that parent must also prove a substantial change in circumstances since the last custody order. There is often conflicting allegations and factual disagreements concerning the above listed factors. Therefore, the Rhode Island Family Court relies heavily on psychologist, Psychiatrist, social workers, dcyf report and the opinions of the Guardian ad Litem for the minor child.

The recent six episode TV series “SILK” (starring Maxine Peake as barrister Martha Costello) was packed with courtroom drama. Courts and tribunals are the places where the legal system decides the outcome of disputes and the range of possible disputes is enormous. The use of the word “persons” may seem odd to the reader but, in law, it includes not just individuals but also certain types of organisation which have been given “legal personality” by the law. A simple example of this is the Limited Company – e.g. Fred Jones Ltd. Cases before the courts are often classed as either Civil cases or as Criminal Cases. A typical civil case is where person A alleges that B has breached a contract – (that is a legally enforceable agreement) – and that A has suffered loss as a result. Another example is where C claims that D has done some work negligently and this has caused him damage such as personal injury. International Courts – It is worth mentioning certain courts with international authority. The United Nations Charter created the “International Court of Justice” which sits at The Hague.